Which wrong? 1.I got no money to buy a good machine to run both the services and database. 2.I got no money to buy a good machine to run both the services and client applications. 3.Client applications hard-coding "localhost". 4.PG hard-coding "localhost".
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 15:16, Robert Young <yay...@gmail.com> wrote: > But...database and other services are not relevant. > And...client apps of course relevant to that services,but I have to > kluge to separate the increasing load. > And...client apps is just as same as PG hard-coding "localhost". > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 15:00, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes: >>> Excerpts from Robert Young's message of vie oct 28 11:47:14 -0300 2011: >>>> I just migrate some services from one machine to another but database >>>> stay there. >>>> So, I think the most simple solution is to change “localhost” point to >>>> the new one, so that I need no modification of client applications. >>>> But found PG gave warnings. >> >>> I'm surprised that your conclusion was that the path of least resistance >>> was submitting a patch to Postgres. Surely patching the apps would have >>> been a lot easier. >> >> The fundamental problem with that kluge (and yes, it's a kluge) is that >> it supposes that you migrated EVERY local service to the other machine. >> Which, obviously, you did not. >> >> regards, tom lane >> > -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
